John, Steven, Gary: The critical role of Boscovich in CSP's scientific thinking is expressed very clearly in W8:284-285, in an article for Nation, entitled "The Periodic Law."
In the last paragraph, he hypothesizes ... "it might be supposed that most of the existing chemical elements have been built up from a few different kinds and it is this way that the relations between atomic weights have arisen." Note that this is a constructionist's view of how atoms came to be. Note that this asserts an interdependence between parts of different atoms without invoking the concept of molecules. Note that he carefully avoids a generalization to all different sorts of atoms. Note that Boscovich (1711 - 1787) was just a few decades prior to Lavoisier and Dalton. Also note no mention of electricity as a source of motion / behavior of atoms, almost a hundred years after Volta. Thus, this note in Nation sheds much light on how he viewed the logic of chemistry. The logic of modern chemistry is built from the concept of electricity as physical particles, as polar opposites, as ordinal and cardinal numbers. Rather remote from Boscovich's scientific views. Consequently, this begins to approach closure on the comparison of CSP logic of chemistry to today's logic of chemistry. Steven: From your perspective of the Peirce familial interactions, does such a constructionistic philosophy of chemistry from the "infinitesimal - like" points of Boscovich convict deeply with the idealism grounded in cosmology? The passage CP 6.82 lacks scientific specificity. Modern chemical thought requires the bi-polarity of electricity as a foundational image of chemical icons and indices and symbols. And, of course, hybrid logic to construct relations between parts of the whole. Cheers Jerry On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:57 PM, John Collier wrote: > Interesting, Jerry. The Scottish Common Sense philosophers (Thomas Reid and > his followers) were Boscovichians, but they thought just that atoms were very > small, not points, since one could not confirm they were points, but they > acted like points, being very small. They were quite influential on many > later developments in Empiricism. The table also misses Thomas Hobbes, whose > political philosophy was based entirely on an atheistic atomism. > > Lucretius, interestingly, proposed evolution by natural selection, which he > thought was a corollary to his atomism. I think that Peirce's evolutionary > views and his views on continuity are more in line with Boscovich, as you > suggest Jerry. I didn't know that Peirce followed Boscovich, but it makes > sense. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: March 25, 2015 3:58 PM > To: Peirce List > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Philosophies of Atomic Theory > > List: > > This website: > > http://www.eoht.info/page/Atomic+theory > > > gives a short survey of atomism, from classic Greek philosophy to modern > times, including its relation to sub-atomic physics. The stages of > development of philosophical thought about the nature of matter are presented > diagrammatically over various periods of thought. > > One can place CSP's scientific views in the contexts of his times, a topic I > have mentioned on several occasions. > > Many students of CSP could find this useful for evaluating various CSP's > text. In particular, note that CSP was a follower of Boscovich. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
